Rhode Island’s Nullification

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Thomas Allen

Recently, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating near polling places in Rhode Island. Naturally, many people strongly object to this Rhode Island law. Some even urge the arrest of the legislators who voted for the law, the governor who signed the bill into law, and any State and local official who attempts to enforce it.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island enacted this law not because it thought ICE was acting unconstitutionally in enforcing the immigration laws. Likely, it enacted the law as a protest against President Trump. Nevertheless, regardless of its motivation, does Rhode Island have the right to nullify a federal law and its enforcement?  Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country, the answer is “yes.” (Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right to the States, and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves it for the States. Also, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees this right.) However, under the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country, the current Constitution, the answer is “no.” (States  have only those rights that the federal government condescends to allow them.)

Whether a State can nullify a federal law within that State depends on whether a State is sovereign. If a State is sovereign, it has the right to decide for itself whether its agent (the federal government) is complying with the compact (the US Constitution) of which it is a member. Consequently, Rhode Island has the right to determine the constitutional limits of the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If a State finds that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, it not only has the right, but also the duty, to nullify or otherwise intervene to prevent such unconstitutional acts or actions. At least this is true if sovereignty resides in “we the people” of each State independently of all other States, as Jefferson and nearly all the other founding fathers claimed. However, if, like Lincoln, the opponents of Rhode Island’s interposition believe that a State does not have this right, then the States are not sovereign, and sovereignty resides in the oligarchs who control the federal government. Like Lincoln, they seem to believe that States have only those rights that the federal government condescends to grant them. (The Lincoln Constitution reduces the States to administrative districts of the federal government. [Lincoln’s War was not a war between the States; it was a war  against the States.])

(Vermont nullified a federal law that was clearly constitutional merely because it disliked the law. Not only did it nullify the law, but it also authorized the arrest and jailing of any federal agent trying to enforce it. [See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.] However, Vermont was acting under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and not the Constitution of Lincoln [For the differences between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.])

Opponents of nullification argue that federal courts should resolve the issues between a State and the federal government. However, this is an extremely poor solution. Being part of the federal government, federal courts are not impartial arbitrators between the States (the creator) and the federal government (the creation of the States). (See “Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution” by Thomas Allen.)

If a State lacks the right to nullify a federal law, it is not sovereign. If it is not sovereign, it does not have a republican form of government, although it may have a governmental structure that appears to be republican. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican form of government.

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that each State has a republican form of government. Thus, if a State lacks sovereignty, the Constitution is being violated. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” and “Republican Form of Government” by Thomas Allen.)

Would the people who oppose Rhode Island enacting a law that interferes with the enforcement of the federal immigration law also oppose a State interfering with the enforcement of a federal law that they despise and urge the arrest of State officials for enacting and enforcing such a law? They would if they are consistent and believe, as Lincoln did, that the United States is a consolidated national empire instead of a federation of sovereign nations, as nearly all, if not all, of the Founding Fathers thought. (See “False States’ Rights” by Thomas Allen.)

Personally, I disagree with Rhode Island on this immigration issue and believe that federal agents have the right to apprehend illegal immigrants at polling places. However, that is an issue for “we the people” of Rhode Island, as represented by their legislature in this instance, to decide, and not for me, the federal government, or anyone else to decide.

(For more about States' rights, nullification, and the Constitution, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/political.html.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Muslims and Jews

Muslims and Jews

Thomas Allen

The host of a radio program to which I listen harshly condemns Islam as a vile, evil, satanic religion and Muslims as vile, evil people. Also, he condemns woke Protestantism, which, unfortunately, includes most of today’s mainline denominations. However, I do not recall him ever condemning woke Judaism, although evidence suggests that Jews are behind much of the apostate corruption of Christianity. What follows are emails that I sent him with some modifications and additions.

If I understand him correctly, he says that the Jews did not kill Jesus. If so, he is calling Paul a liar (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Here, Paul expressly states that the Jews killed Jesus. Also, Peter says that the Jews killed Jesus: Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, and Acts 5:30.  In his reply, he states that the Jews did not do the deed (his reply is given below). They may not have been the ones who physically hung Jesus on the cross, but they terrorized and manipulated the Romans into doing the deed for them. Regardless, both Paul and Peter give the Jews the credit for killing Jesus rather than the Romans. (See “Who Killed Jesus” by Thomas Allen.)

Islam may be as evil as the host describes it: more evil than sin. The nefarious acts of Muslims in Europe support his claim. (However, since most of these aliens are nonwhites, could their motivation be race and not religion?) Even more iniquitous are the acts of the European leaders, who are surely disciples of Lucifer. They let, even encourage, Muslim males of military age to enter their countries in vast numbers. Not only do they allow these Muslims to destroy European cultures, rape European women, and commit other hideous crimes, but they also protect them while they do these despicable acts, and they also arrest those who object to what these Muslims are doing.

Nevertheless, when I hear the host’s description of Muslims, I think of Jews. Muslims may be liars, connivers, thieves, killers, destroyers, etc. So are Jews — even more so. (This misbehavior has caused many countries to expel Jews throughout history; they did not expel them because of their religion.) The difference between the two is that, because of their small numbers, Jews manipulate others, like Americans, to do their killing and conquering.

Moreover, which Jews are we talking about? (1) The descendants of the Old Testament Israelites, especially Judah, i.e., Jews with all of their chromosomes coming from the Old Testament Israelites, of whom few, if any, exist today. (2) The people of Persia who became Jews for fear of the Jews at the time of Esther. (3) The Edomites or Idumaeans, who accounted for a large percentage of the Jews in Judea and surrounding areas during the time of Jesus. (4) The Ashkenazim, who originated in Europe (or in the Khazar Khaganate, as some claim) and who account for most of the Jews today. (5) The Sephardic Jews of the Iberian Peninsula. (6) The Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa, who are a mixed breed of people. (7) The Jews of the Khazar Khaganate. If the Israelites are God’s chosen people, only the first group qualifies. The others are either amalgamated mongrels or not descendants of the Israelites. (There are people who call themselves Jews but are not [Revelation 2:9 and 3:9].)

Furthermore, if Islam is a satanic religion, so is Judaism. If it were not, why would Jesus call the Pharisees children of the devil: John 8:44? Today's Judaism is a direct descendant of Pharisaic Judaism.

Anyway, one’s religious book (the Koran) teaches that Jesus is a great prophet. The other’s religious book (the Talmud) teaches that Jesus is a blasphemer, a sorcerer, and a bastard. Which is more compatible with Christianity?

Additionally, at the behest of Jews, the US House of Representatives adopted a definition of antisemitism that outlaws the New Testament (the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023). (See “Christian Zionists” by Thomas Allen.)

Peace will not exist in the Middle East until one of two things happens. One, Israel ceases to exist or is reduced to insignificance. Two, all the Muslims and Christians who live in Egypt east of the Nile, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Turkey south of the Euphrates, in Syria west of the Euphrates, in Iraq west of the Euphrates, in Kuwait, and in northern Saudi Arabia leave their homes and let the Jews have their lands. (Does Israel have a right to all the territory that I name? Israel claims that it does. It claims all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates — from the river to the river.)

In closing, although I despise the acts of many Jews, such as Soros, I do not hate Jews. I wish that they all would come to Christ and receive his saving grace.

Replies

First reply: “Then you are calling God a liar. I have zero time with people of a Hitler mindset [sic]. Goodbye.” My comment: Although I cite several Bible verses, I did not mention God, the Bible, or theology, so how and where did I call God a liar? At worst, I described the stereotypical Jew as he described the stereotypical Muslim. Apparently, he considers today’s Jews as God’s chosen people (I always thought that Christians are God’s chosen people), although they act like Satan’s chosen people — especially the Zionist Jews in Israel. As for Hitler, I see Hitler and his followers as similar to the way this radio host sees Muslims: very evil people.

Second: “People make a big mistake when they claim God broke has [sic, His]  promise to the Jews. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but this unprecedented rise in anti-Jewish sentiment is of biblical proportion. God’s promise is eternally binding, if it isn’t then neither is His promise of salvation to the Gentile. The Church did NOT replace God’s chosen, we were grafted onto that tree. I apologize for bring [sic, being[ so curt in my prior email. This morning has been physically rough on me, plus I just went through a pile of typical writings from leftists. As to my point about the Jews not being the one to kill Jesus, my point is they were not the ones who did the deed. While they wanted Jesus gone, because He was a threat to their corrupt institution, it was the ‘institution’ not the actual people who were threatened. That is still the issue to this day; a corrupt leadership. I always remind people of the word ‘Remnant.’ That is true among both Christians and Jews.” My comment: Although I do not know for sure, he seems to agree with those Christian Zionists who believe that Jews are saved merely by being Jews and without believing in Jesus for salvation. Moreover, are the Jews who live in Israel today the Jews to whom the promise was made? There are Jews, and there are Jews. Today, many people call themselves Jews, but are not Jews. (See my comment above on what Jews we are talking about.) Moreover, how can antichrist be God’s chosen people? In 1 John 2:22 and 4:3,  John writes that those, including and especially Jews, who deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ are the antichrist. (Since Muslims deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ, they are also antichrist.) Furthermore, most of the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment comes from Israel acting like a bully, Jews manipulating leaders, especially in the United States, to support Israel’s hostile and bullying actions, Jews promoting the suppression of freedom of speech in the United States (Muslims are doing likewise, but they have not been as effective), and other nefarious acts of Jews.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Aryans Compared with Melanochroi

Thomas Allen

The two races, more correctly, species, of humans most commonly confused are Aryans and Melanochroi. Many people lump the two together as Caucasian, which makes Caucasian a poor racial name that leads to confusion.

Aryans are also known as Whites, White Caucasians, Europeans, and Homo albus. Aryan racial types include Nordics (a.k.a. Cymric, Aryans, Teutonics), East Baltics (a.k.a. East Europeans, Orientals), Alpines (a.k.a. Celts, Celto-Slavs, Ligurians, Arvernians, Cymric), Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Iberians), Dinarics (a.k.a. Adriatics, Illyrians), Armenians (a.k.a. Assyrians, Anatolians), Southern Mediterraneans (a.k.a. Northern Hamites, Libyans, Atlanteans, Libyo-Teutonics), Pamiri, Northern Semites (a.k.a. Northern Arabs, Chaldeans), Iranians (a.k.a. Irano-Mediterraneans), and Indo-Afghans. In the Eastern Hemisphere, Aryans are the predominant people in Europe, Lebanon, Syria, northern and central Iraq, Iran (except Khuzistan, the coastal regions, and Baluchistan), eastern Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, northwest India, western Kashmir, Maghreb coast, Tunis, Tripolitania, and Cyrenaica.

Melanochroi are also known as Brown Caucasians and Homo brunus. Melanochroic racial types include Saharan-Hamites (a.k.a. Moors, Saharan-Berbers), Eastern-Hamites (a.k.a. Ethiopians), Egyptians, Orientals (a.k.a. Arabs, Southern Arabs), Indo-Iranians (a.k.a. Hindus), and Dravidians (a.k.a. Asiatic Negroes, Melano-Hindus). In the Eastern Hemisphere, Melanochroi are the predominate people in and around the Sahara Desert (central and southern Morocco, central and southern Algeria, Mauritania, northern Mali, Niger, northern Chad, and southern and central Libya), Egypt, eastern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Arabian peninsula, southern Iraq, Khuzistan, the coastal regions of Iran, Baluchistan, central and southern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.

Physical Description

Skin color

Aryan: light with reddish or pinkish tones; reflectivity of 50–64 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 1–17 (except 4–6).

Melanochroi: light yellowish brown to reddish brown to dark brown; reflectivity of 23–41 percent, Luschan’s Hautfarbentafel of 18–29.

Hair color

Aryan: varying in color from dark brown to light brown, light chestnut, reddish brown, flaxen; relatively high frequency of blondness; grays early.

Melanochroi: dark brown to black.

Head hair

Aryan: soft; fine texture; wavy or straight, sometimes curly; elliptic cross-section; tendency to baldness.

Melanochroi: curly or fizzy in the Hamitic branch; straight or wavy in the Indian branch.

Facial hair

Aryan: often highly developed.

Melanochroi: moderate beard development; some full, some scant.

Body hair

Aryan: medium to strong development.

Melanochroi: usually scant.

Face

Aryan: orthognathous; middle region of the face projects rather strongly, but cheekbones and jaws are not prominent; relatively narrow with slight cheekbones and few or no angles; typically oval in outline.

Melanochroi: orthognathous; elongated, oval; jaws not projecting.

Forehead

Aryan: straight to slightly sloping; medium to high.

Melanochroi: high.

Eyes

Aryan: corners at one level.

Melanochroi: straight, almond-shaped.

Eye color

Aryan: brown, but many with green, grey, light blue, and dark blue.

Melanochroi: light brown to dark brown or black.

Eyelids

Aryan: fold of eyelid weakly developed; conjunctiva bluish to pearly white.

Melanochroi: —

Nose

Aryan: leptorrhine; narrow with fairly high bridge; long axes of the nostrils are placed in an almost straight line from back to front.

Melanochroi: generally prominent; straight or arched; round at the points; delicate nostrils.

Lips

Aryan: medium to thin; do not project.

Melanochroi: medium or thick; some thin; never protruding.

Mouth

Aryan: —

Melanochroi: moderate size.

Teeth

Aryan: microdont; small to medium; mildly and uniformly concave upper incisors on the lingual side.

Melanochroi: white; regular; a little projecting.

Chin

Aryan: medium to strongly developed.

Melanochroi: fairly prominent; often pointed.

Ears

Aryan: medium size; relatively narrow and long; lobule does not hang low.

Melanochroi: —

Head shape

Aryan: all three types (dolichocephalic, mesocephalic, and brachycephalic) are widespread.

Melanochroi: dolichocephalic, some mesocephalic; oblong; round-domed skull.

Body characteristics

Aryan: mesomorphy; upper arm and leg generally longer than lower arm and leg; legs and torso medium to long in length; legs shapely and full; in women legs stout and in apposition when standing; buttocks sometimes with a slight over-development of fat; long sitting height.

Melanochroi: ectomorphy; slender; symmetrical; legs shapely with calves well developed.

Female breast

Aryan: generally hemispherical; small areola.

Melanochroi: hemispherical.

Feet and hands

Aryan: feet small to large, well arched; hands small to large.

Melanochroi: feet small with high instep.

Stature

Aryan: average to tall.

Melanochroi: average to below average; some tall.

Reference

Allen, Thomas Coley. Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1999.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles

Taxation and Voting

Taxation and Voting

Thomas Allen

In The United States Unmasked: A Search into the Causes of the Rise and Progress of These States, and an Exposure Of Their Present Material and Moral Condition (London, Ontario: J. H. Vivian, 1878), pages 129 –131, G. Manigault  explains why suffrage needs to be limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes:

The colonies quarrelled with the mother country because they were taxed by its parliament in which they were not represented, “No taxation without representation!” This sounds like a safeguard to one’s rights; yet it is but a half truth, valueless and deceptive until you add the suppressed half to it. “No representation without taxation!”

Government is a necessary agency. Society cannot do without it. But it is a costly and burdensome agent; and moreover one whose powers have often been grossly abused and perverted from their true objects. Yet its powers must be entrusted to some person, or persons, or class of persons. The only class of persons to whom the ultimate control over the government can be entrusted with reasonable hope of good results, is that which furnishes the means of supporting the government, and feels the burden of its costly maintenance. This class are the tax-payers, the holders of visible, tangible property, which cannot hide itself from taxation. This class has a direct and obvious interest in watching the government and the officials who administer its powers—in checking extravagance and enforcing economy and honesty in government expenditure; for they furnish the means. They have every motive for watching that the operations of government are directed to the protection of the rights and the redress of the wrongs of individuals, and the safety of the community — and not perverted to purposes for which it was not created. For this class have not only personal and social rights, like other people, but they possess vast acquired and vested rights peculiarly apt to suffer from the neglect or abuses, or perversion of government; rights, on the protection and security of which the welfare and civilization of the country depend. This class may be very numerous, or may consist of comparatively few, according to the circumstances of the particular country. But in every civilized country it forms but a minority, and usually a small minority of the people in it. Yet their right to be intrusted with the ultimate control over the government and its officials will not be hard to see when we have considered two other suppositions. 1st, That of one man being the imposer, collector, and expender of taxes. 2nd, That while the property-holders pay the taxes, those who hold no property and pay no taxes, should impose them. Do not say that this is an impossible case. But it is certain to prove a ruinous arrangement. These imposers of the taxes have no motive for enforcing on the government economy and honesty in its expenditures. They may become interested in its extravagance, its dishonesty, and in the perversion of its powers. Is not this what has happened in the United States? 

The individual States originally had in their political organization this safe-guard against the extravagance, dishonesty, and perversion of their governments. We believe that in every one, certainly in nearly all of them the franchise was limited to the freeholder, a basis of political power wide enough to secure attention to the protection of the personal and social rights of every citizen, choice enough to secure that all who ultimately controlled the government and its officials, should have a direct interest in preserving that government from corruption, and the perversion of its powers. Accordingly these State governments were, for many years, efficient without becoming burdensome or corrupt.

Thus, when the privilege of voting and holding public office is limited to people who pay a minimum amount of direct taxes, governments are frugal and prudent. They are limited and kept within tight bounds. As a result, liberty is protected and flourishes. However, when suffrage is nearly universal as it is today, governments grow without bounds, taxes become exceedingly burdensome, debts explode to unpayable heights, and liberty fades.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen

More political articles.

Review of Christian Race Realism

Review of Christian Race Realism

Thomas Allen

Below is a review of Christian Race Realism (Sacra Press, 2025) by Michael Spangler. I found this book to be a disappointment primarily because of its weak Scriptural arguments. Yes, he shows that the human races are real and important. However, beyond that, he mostly agrees with the Christian racial nihilists. My review of this book is posted on Amazon. 

The Achilles heel of all race realists, whether they claim to be evolutionists or, especially, creationists, is monogenesis: All humans are descendants from the same set of parents, i.e., Adam and Eve or their evolutionary equivalent. Until they abandon monogenesis for polygenesis, which the Scriptures support, they are doomed to fail.

Spangler is a monogenist and an evolutionist who disguises himself as a creationist.  Although he shows that the human races are real, he claims that they change over time. Consequently, they are only temporarily real; eventually, they will transition into another race. That is, today’s Aryan (White) and Negro (Black) races will morph into a different race within a few centuries or so. Likewise, the other races will change into different races. Accordingly, human races are malleable, which conflicts with Jeremiah 13:23 (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” by Thomas Allen). By claiming that today’s Negroes are descendants of Ham, who was an Aryan, he supports the mutability of the races, which is evolution. (To fit the typical biblical theory of the advocates of a young-earth and universal flood, like Spangler, Ham’s descendants have had to have evolved into Negroes within a few generations. If their theory is true, why have we not witnessed one race changing into another race during the last several millennia?) Thus, he is an evolutionist, although he asserts that he is a creationist.

One of the several errors that Spangler makes concerns Ruth. He claims that she was a Moabite by ethnicity. She was not. She was ethnically an Israelite who was born in Moab (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different ‘‘races” arise (from Noah’s family)?’” by Thomas Allen.).

Although he opposes interracial marriages, he does not consider miscegenation a sin (See “The Bible, Segregation, and Miscegenation” and “Does God Abhor or Approve Miscegenation?” by Thomas Allen). Claiming that miscegenation is not a sin is another one of his errors. However, he does claim that using poor judgment is a sin, and marrying outside of one’s race is using poor judgment.

Review

Spangler argues that the various human races are real, hence race realism. The primary target of his argument is the Christian race nihilist (my term, not his). Christian race nihilists believe that human races are social constructs and, therefore, do not exist biologically, or that human races do exist but are irrelevant. 

Spangler supports his argument with Scripture, nature (physical attributes, language, culture, morality, religion, intelligence, and location), and history. He does a much better job of supporting his position with nature and history than with Scripture, which is pathetic. Nevertheless, he does show that the Scriptures treat the races as real and important.

Since Spangler’s arguments promoting race realism are directed primarily at Christian race nihilists, his Scriptural arguments should have been extremely strong, but, alas, they are weak and often agree with the Christian race nihilist. Like Christian race nihilists, Spangler is a creationist-evolutionist (to use an oxymoron), i.e., kind after different kind, like beget unlike. Also, like them, he is somewhat of a Lamarckian. One of his major problems is that he cannot free himself from the orthodoxy of all humans having a common ancestry. 

Additionally, Spangler discusses the confusion caused by the term “race.”  Among other things, it can mean all mankind, one of the major biological divisions of humans, an ethnicity, or a nationality. Thus, “race” is an almost useless term. At times, he seems to succumb to this confusion.

Spangler discusses interracial marriages in some depth, but he avoids the Scriptural condemnation of miscegenation. Instead, like Christian race nihilists, he does not consider miscegenation a sin. Nevertheless, he shows that God is a segregationist and is not an egalitarian.

Furthermore, Spangler gives an excellent explanation of the difference between civil rights and natural rights. Most civil rights granted in the last several decades have been detrimental to the common good.

Also, Spangler explains that discrimination and prejudice are not inherently sinful. He urges praising and protecting racial differences.

Spangler offers several recommendations. (1) Race realists should read books and articles on race. (2) Race realists should defend race realism; he provides advice about how to do it. (3) He calls for completely destroying the idol of egalitarianism and repenting of the notion that races are not real and unimportant, etc. (he provides a long list of things for which Blacks and Whites need to repent). (4) People should honor their extended family, i.e., their race (the fifth commandment). (5) People should not marry outside of their extended family. He explains why. (6) Children should be taught race realism, its importance, and the importance of segregation. (7) He offers advice on several political issues: immigration, crime, segregation, employment, suffrage, and self-defense. (8) Ministers and the church should teach race realism.

Although Spangler is a race realist, he seems to want to compromise with the Christian race nihilists. Unnecessarily, he concedes many points to them rather than rebuke them.

Nevertheless, Spangler is right about one thing: Race realists must be telling the truth. If they were not telling the truth, why do they cause race nihilists, especially Christian race nihilists, to go into hysterics? After all, race realists have no power or influence in the church or government.

In conclusion, Spangler does show that the various human races are real rather than social constructs. They are important in the eyes of God, and, therefore, should be important in the eyes of man. Unfortunately, he does a mediocre job of proving that Christian nihilists are incorrect Scripturally.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Comparable Worth

 

Comparable Worth

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: This article was submitted in 1984 for the “Southern National Newsletter” of the Southern National Party. The article has been slightly edited.]

“Comparable worth” is beginning to replace the chimera of “equal pay for equal work.” (The reason that equal pay for equal work is losing to comparable worth is that it has failed to transfer enough wealth from the productive to the politically powerful.) But what is comparable worth? How should wages be determined?

In a free market, the consumer determines wages. Wages are paid according to how much one contributes to society. Everyone is paid what he is worth. (If a person believes that he is underpaid, he is free to find a job that pays more.) However, government intervention distorts a worker’s real worth.

The government can distort wages in many different ways. It can do it indirectly by granting monopolistic privileges to labor unions and public utilities. Most of its economic regulations distort wages to some degree. These regulations create nonproductive and otherwise unnecessary positions. Businesses are forced to hire people who do nothing but placate governmental officials. Taxes can have both an indirect and a direct impact on wage rates.

Besides taxes, the government directly distorts wages in several other ways. The most obvious is to fix wages as was done during the wage freeze of the 1970s. Also, the government fixes a minimum wage and forbids anyone from working if his economic contribution to society falls below this arbitrary number. Further, it distorts wages by forcing businesses to hire a minimum number of politically privileged groups (commonly called minorities, although they may not be in the minority and although many minorities are not so privileged). Moreover, it dictates equal pay for equal work. (No two people do equal work because no two people are equal. No two people can be equal because no two people are identical. Only identical people can do equal work. Yet, the government does not let the facts stand in the way of its lust for power.) Now, it is pushing an idea that will give it complete control over the workers and the economy — comparable worth.

Comparable worth is an arbitrary and subjective approach that attempts to compare the tens of thousands of different occupations in the United States and to determine the relative value of each when compared with all other occupations. The comparable worth approach subjectively determines the economic contribution of each occupation to society. This means that one’s political influence determines one’s economic worth. White-collar workers develop comparable worth schemes. Not unexpectedly, these schemes always elevate white-collar jobs and lower blue-collar jobs. The subjective approach of comparable worth would replace the objective approach of the free market in determining wages. Bureaucrats would determine wages instead of consumers.

The outcome of the comparable worth approach would be economic chaos. The government would gain complete control over the lives of every worker. Class conflict, the lifeblood of democracy, would be encouraged. Thus, the blue-collar worker, who is normally discriminated against by comparable worth, would be pitted against the white-collar worker. Courts would be filled with litigation. The wealth of the politically powerful would rise, although their economic contribution to their fellow man would decline. Of course, the government would grow astronomically as it tried to administer this draconian program. All this would be the result of using the arbitrary and subjective approach of comparable worth to determine wages instead of the objective and unbiased approach of the free market.

If the desired goal is tyranny and a larger and more powerful government, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If one should be paid according to his political influence, then wages should be determined by comparable worth. If the desired goal is liberty and justice, then wages should be determined by the free market. If one should be paid according to his economic contribution to his fellow man, then wages should be determined by the free market.

Copyright © 1984, 2026 by Thomas C. Allen.

More economic articles.

Yankees Need the South

Yankees Need the South

Thomas Allen

Yankees need the South and Southerners, but Southerners do not need Yankees. Furthermore, Southerners are better off without Yankees. 

Yankees are extremely self-righteous, arrogant, hypocritical, greedy, disagreeable, and bossy. They possess the typical Puritan attitude: they lust to remake America and the world into the perfect image of themselves. (For more descriptions of the Yankee, see “The Yankee,” “The Puritan Yankee,” and “Cusson’s Description of the Yankee” by Thomas Allen.)

Although many Northerners are not real Yankees, many, unfortunately, have become Yankeefied. Likewise, many scalawag Southerners have become Yankeefied. (Most governors of Southern States have been Yankeefied: Examples are Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Two recent Southern governors are real Yankees: George Bush and Jeb Bush.)

Because of their need for Southerners, Yankees could not let the South go in 1861 and cannot let them go today. Furthermore, Yankees believe that the solution to America’s problems is to rule the South with an iron fist.

Yankees have a psychological need for the “Lost Cause” of the Confederacy.  Could it be that Yankees know in their hearts that the leaders of the Confederacy were morally and ethically superior to Lincoln and the leaders of the North? Yankees needed and still need the “Myth of the Lost Cause” to reassure themselves that Southerners were and still are fiendish, diabolical, and abominable to justify their power, privilege, and amour propre.

Being void of virtue, Yankees need to steal virtue from others. Since the South is part of the American empire, stealing virtue from the South is convenient and easy. Thus, every good thing that comes out of the South is not really Southern; it is American, i.e., Northern, especially New England.

Moreover, Yankees need to belittle Southerners to feed their self-esteem. Without having Southerners to disparage, Yankees would be nothing. Thus, Yankees view themselves as righteous and Southerners as evil.

Although Yankees have lure and ideology, Yankeedom has no civilization; they have no culture. Therefore, they need the South to provide them with a culture.

Sanctimonious Yankees need Southerners so that they can have someone to whom feel superior. Condemning the South gives Yankees a sense of identity and importance because they feel superior to Southerners.

Additionally, Yankees need a scapegoat to blame for their sins and failures.  Being part of the American empire makes the South a convenient scapegoat. Consequently, every undesirable thing that happens in the North, such as racial strife in Northern cities, results from the sins of the South. Yankees blame Southerners for the racial hatred and social pathologies in the North. Moreover, they blame Southerners for the evil that Yankees have caused. Thus, all economic, social, and psychological problems are the fault of Southerners. Needing someone to blame for their failures, Yankees blame Southerners.

No Yankee is going to let the truth detour his hatred of and hostility toward Southerners, whether they are reconstructed or remain unreconstructed.

Appendix

In America, two primary branches of Protestantism compete with each other. They are the Yankee religion and the Southern religion.

The Yankee religion is Calvinist and Puritan, that is, disciplined, communal, and focused on the purification of the community. It places evil in the object, e.g., drugs, guns, and the living environment. Thus, it seeks power and stresses social improvement. Being on the right side of history is a personal virtue. Out of the Yankee religion have come abolitionism, millennialism, progressivism, prohibition, feminism, the civil rights movement, neoconservatism, political correctness, social justice, wokeism, and Antifa. Furthermore, it is the parent of the the concept of "the city on the hill.”  Usually, the sermons of the Yankee religion are on current events.

The Southern religion is spiritually Anglican, although it is not structurally Anglican. That is, it is folkish and focuses on the individual and his soul. It places evil in the hearts of men. Thus, it seeks sanctification and manifests in a person’s private life, and goes unnoticed by intellectuals and historians. It stresses faith and piety with the notion of a Christian gentleman. A virtuous person is valuable to his fellow man. Usually, the sermons of the Southern religion are on salvation.

The Yankee religion represents worldly power and prestige more than does the Southern religion.

Reference

Wilson, Clyde N. Defending Dixie: Essays in Southern History and Culture. Second edition. Columbia, South Carolina: Stonewall Publishing LLC: 2005, 2025.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Lincoln’s Curses

Lincoln’s Curses

Thomas Allen

 

1. Lincoln’s worst curse was converting the United States from a federation of independent sovereign republics to a consolidated national empire with the States reduced to administrative districts. As a corollary to this curse, the States lost their republican form of government; their governments remain republican in appearance but not in substance. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) He effectively repealed the Tenth Amendment.

2. Lincoln cursed America and most of the world with the notion that once a territory (State, province, country, or whatever) becomes part of another country, union, or federation, whether voluntarily or by conquest, it cannot leave without the consent of the country, union, or federation of which it is part. 

3. Lincoln cursed the United States with the “unquestioned mystique of might-makes-right and the coercive unitary nation-state.” This notion is the foundation of American hegemony and globalism.

4. Not only did Lincoln curse the country with an imperial president, which has grown stronger over the years, but he also cursed the country with a kritarchy. Following Lincoln, the Supreme Court began converting the country into a kritarchy. This goal was fully achieved with the Warren Court. Because of Lincoln, the United States have become a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress. The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court declares it to mean. (Thanks to Lincoln, kakistocrats, ideocrats, and kleptocrats have ruled the United States at various times.)

5. Lincoln suppressed the freedom of the press. Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt followed his example. Biden did likewise during the COVID-19 plandemic. Now, censorship primarily applies to the internet, as the oligarchs who control the federal government also control the press outside of the internet.

6. Lincoln cursed the United States with the income tax. He gave the country its first income tax. Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was unconstitutional. This ruling was followed by the Sixteenth Amendment, which made the income tax permanent. His income tax also cursed the country with the Internal Revenue Service.

7. Lincoln normalized and made the corrupt and cartelized business-government partnerships permanent. As a result, the military-industrial complex, the security-industrial complex, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tech, Big Oil, Big Finance, Big Insurance, and other Big Businesses work closely with the federal government. In exchange for special governmentally granted privileges and benefits, they aid the federal government in expanding its power. (The oligarchs that control the federal government also control the collaborating businesses.)

8. Protective tariffs of Lincoln’s Republican Party were the primary cause of the secession of the States of the Lower South. Between Lincoln’s War and World War II, protective tariffs were the primary way that the federal government subsidized Big Businesses. Following World War II, Big Businesses began turning against tariffs. They discovered that they could profit more from producing goods in foreign countries and importing them into the United States.

9. Lincoln gave the United States their first legal tender fiat currency, the U.S. note or greenback. Although the country returned to the gold-coin standard in 1879, the fiat U.S. notes remained in circulation and were issued until their issuance was discontinued in 1971. (Unlike gold certificates, people were not required to turn U.S. notes in. They remained in circulation until they wore out or the banking system redrew them. One may occasionally find them in circulation. The author received one about ten years ago.) Between 1879 and 1933, when Franklin Roosevelt ended the gold standard, U.S. notes were redeemable at par in gold. 

10. With the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864, Lincoln nationalized the American banking system. In 1913, the Federal Reserve System replaced the national banking system.

11.  Other curses of Lincoln include establishing a large standing national army, legitimizing martial law even in areas where civil courts are open, ignoring habeas corpus and jailing dissidents and others without trial or due process, and establishing mostly permanent conscription (currently, conscription is out of favor; however, it can be resurrected at anytime, especially since the leaders of the United States want to subdue everyone in the world to their will).

Although Lincoln is credited with freeing the slaves, he freed no slaves. If he and the abolitionists wanted to free the slaves, they could have started by buying slaves with their own money and setting them free. Since they did not, they proved that they loved their money more than freeing slaves.

Reference

Rothbard, Murray N. “The Nationalities Question.” Mises Daily. April 18, 2022.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Some Observations Pertaining to Race

Thomas Allen

 

Discussed below are the option of racial separation, the social construct of the races, school integration, and the future of the American Negro.

Many Whites are racial nihilists and pretend to be Negrophiles. (One cannot be a racial nihilist and at the same time be a Negrophile. A racial nihilist claims that race is irrelevant, while a Negrophile claims to love Negroes, which requires the relevancy of Negroes.) In reality, White racial nihilists hate Whites and have no qualms about annihilating the American Negro if their annihilation results in the genocide of Whites.

Racial Separation Is Not an Option

In “Mamdani’s Commie Housing Official Is a Lunatic,” January 7, 2026, (https://amac.us/newsline/politics/mamdanis-commie-housing-official-is-a-lunatic/?utm_objective=website_traffic&dderh=4b6c02be5961e5a13b9d052b0611dda2), the author wrote, “There are many policy options available to the voters of this country, but communism and racial separation are not among them.” If racial separation is a policy option not available to the voters of this country, then racial amalgamation is the policy forced on the country. Racial amalgamation is genocide of the races, as the races cease to exist when amalgamated. Why does this author hate the American Negro so much that he wants to genocide them? (See “Miscegenation Is Genocide” by Thomas Allen.)

Furthermore, the author writes, “This is not a communist country, and our system is not compatible with communism’s demands.” For a country that is not communist, the United States have gone a long way toward implementing the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. The United States have adopted about 80 percent of these planks (five fully and five partially). The country may not be a fully communist country, but it is almost there. (See “Are the United States a Communist Country?” by Thomas Allen.)

Are the Races Social Constructs?

Many left-wingers and brainwashed right-wingers who want to be politically correct claim that the human races are social constructs and do not exist biologically. If the human races are social constructs, how can dogs distinguish a Black person from a White person without ever seeing the person? Furthermore, bacteria, which know even less about human racial constructs than do dogs, can distinguish a Black person from a White person. Different odor-causing bacteria grow on Blacks than grow on Whites. For this reason, dogs can differentiate between the races.

Furthermore, and even more shockingly, computers can identify a person’s race from medical images. Computers must be identifying some kind of biological features that distinguish one social construct race from another, which means that races are biological rather than social constructs. (Rachel Gordon, "Artificial intelligence predicts patients' race from their medical images/' MIT News, May 20, 2022:[https://news.mit.edu/2022/artificial-intelligence-predicts-patients-race-from-medical-images-0520] and “AI recognition of patient race in medical imaging: a modelling study” [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35568690/].)

Amazingly, the blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen) and skeletons (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races”) of these socially constructed races differ. Even more amazingly, they differ in nonphysical characteristics. (See “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen.) 

Miraculously, socially constructed races correspond almost perfectly with biological races — both physically and physiologically. It must be one of those great, inexplicable coincidences.

School Integration

Northerners and especially Yankees supported school integration in the South primarily for two reasons. First, they, especially Yankees, supported it because they hated Southerners and wanted to use Blacks to destroy them and their way of life. Second, they wanted to keep Blacks where they belonged — in the South. If they integrated schools in the South but not in the North, fewer Blacks would migrate to the North. (Initially, federal integration laws were written to apply only where segregation was statutory [in the South] and not where segregation was customary [in the North]. Unfortunately for the North, judges started doing what they always do and ignored the parts of the law with which they disliked and started applying integration laws in the North.) Almost no Northerners, especially Yankees, were concerned about the welfare of Blacks. Blacks were merely weapons to destroy the South. Now, the monster that they created is destroying all of White America, as Whites have become second-class citizens in the country that they created.

Future of the American Negro

When Hispanics allied with East Asians and South Asians reach critical mass, Whites will, most likely, remain second-class citizens. However, Blacks will be demoted to fifth-class citizens. Unfortunately for Blacks, they will not be able to control this alliance with false guilt, as they have controlled Whites. The typical Hispanic, East Asian, and South Asian has less use for Blacks than the stereotypical Klansman.

Under White supremacy, Blacks were at least allowed on the bus, although they were usually restricted to the rear of the bus. Under the nonwhite-nonblack supremacy, they may not even be allowed on the bus.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Iran’s Hostility Toward Israel

Thomas Allen

In “The Iran War: A Background of Decades and Centuries,” Beyond Today, May–June, 2026, pages 18–21, Scott Ashley discusses Iran’s hostility toward Israel and the United States. My comments are enclosed in parentheses.

Ashley blames the current Iranian war on Hamas’s invading and killing some 1200 Israeli civilians. (He fails to mention that Israel and the United States created Hamas. Furthermore, he neglects to reveal that the Israeli armed forces killed many of the 1200 people.)

According to Ashley and many others, this war with Iran began in 1979 with the overthrow of the Shah, the taking of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, and the capture of 52 U.S. embassy employees, who were held for 444 days. He identifies several other Iranian attacks against the United States since then. Thus, Iran has been at war with the United States for almost 50 years. (However, he ignores the United States being at war with the Iranian people since the early 1950s when they started meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. The United States sided with the despotic Shah against the despotic prime minister. Apparently, the regime of the Shahs became so unbearable that most Iranians rejoiced at the arrival of Khomeini in 1979.)

Ashley discusses Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As he notes, the ostensible reason for the war with Iran is to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. (Protecting and advancing Israel’s Greater Israel agenda is the real reason. That the United States destroyed Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a sneak attack in 2025 — that is what President Trump told the world — seems to be forgotten. Did Trump lie in 2025 or is he lying now?)

Ashley implies that the United States initiated this latest attack on Iran. He asks, “Why did Israel join in joint attacks with the U.S. military?” (In reality, the United States joined Israel. Israel was going to attack regardless of the U.S. participation. In an attempt to reduce American casualties, the United States joined Israel in the attack. They knew that Iran would strike American bases in retaliation for an Israeli assault.)

Quoting two passages from the Quran, Ashley shows that anyone who practices any religion other than Islam is an idolater — hence, the Muslim antipathy toward non-Muslims, i.e., Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. Iran’s religious leaders have adopted and applied this animosity toward non-Muslims. (Yet, Jews have synagogues and Christians have churches in Iran. Moreover, Christians seem to have just as much religious freedom in Iran as they have in Israel — if not more.)

According to Ashley, the reason for Muslim abhorrence of Israel is that Muslims cannot accept the notion of territory once controlled by Muslims coming under the control of Christians or Jews. (If true, why do Muslims not display the same degree of hostility toward Spain, Portugal, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania, which Muslims once ruled? Could it be that the primary cause is Israel’s malevolent treatment of Palestinians? Since 1948, it has driven most Palestinians from their homes and stolen their land. Now, it seeks to genocide the Palestinians.)

Finally, Ashley discusses the “end times” theology of Iran’s religious leaders. (It closely resembles the end times theology of Christian Zionists.) The Islamic messiah, Mahdi, will arise at a period of end-time tribulation (the Great Tribulation of Christian Zionists) and establish Islam as the dominant religion of the world (similar to Jesus returning to establish his religion as the global religion).

According to Ashley, Iran’s leadership wants nuclear weapons with which to attack Israel to precipitate a nuclear war to hasten the appearance of Mahdi. (Likewise, many Christian Zionists want to start a nuclear war with Iran to hasten the return of Jesus.)

(Whether the current war with Iran leads to a global nuclear war and the appearance of Mahdi or Jesus remains to be seen. May God bring humility, sanity, and wisdom to the world’s leaders so that they will act like adults instead of narcissistic, psychopathic, spoiled brats.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Aryan as a Racial Name

Aryan as a Racial Name

Thomas Allen

Although many people objected to using “Aryan” as the name for the White race  (or more correctly, the White species, Homo albus), it is an appropriate term. Caucasian, which is commonly used for the White race, suffers a major problem. It covers both White Caucasians, who should be called “Aryans,” and Brown Caucasians, who should be called Melanochroi (H. brunus).  Thus, “Caucasian” generally includes many people, such as the inhabitants of India and Ethiopia, who do not properly belong to the White race. (They are part of the Melanochroic species.) Similarly, “European” also suffers from problems and is even more misleading and confusing when used to refer to people in the Middle East and northern Africa who are White Caucasians. 

A major objection to using “Aryan” is that it is a name for a language group, a subclass of the Indo-European language family. This argument is fallacious, and those who use it are inconsistent. Many racial types have the same name as the language that they speak. Examples of language names used as names of races or racial types are Celt, Semitic, Berber, Tungus, Chinese, Turk, Mongolian, Malay, Polynesian, Lapp, Eskimo, Bantu, Hamite, Arab, Khoisan, and Melanesian. 

Nearly all people identified as Aryan speak an Indo-European language, which in former times was referred to as Aryan. (The notable exceptions are the Basques, Finns, Hungarians, Southern Mediterraneans of North Africa, and various peoples of the Caucasus and Middle East.) Except for Melanochroic Indians and various peoples who have acquired Aryan languages in recent centuries from Aryan imperialism, Aryan languages are spoken only by Aryans. Another advantage of using “Aryan” as the name for the White race (H. albus) is that no nationality or geographical area is known by this name. Thus, the use of this name prevents confusion with a particular nationality or geographical area. These facts make “Aryan” preferable to “Caucasian” as a name for this species. (A minor disadvantage to using Aryan is that some people limit it strictly to Nordics or Alpines. Also, Aryan was the name of an ancient but now extinct tribe that invaded India several thousand years ago.) “Aryan” was commonly used in the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century as a racial name. Further, the word rolls off the tongue better than other names for this species. For these reasons, among others, “Aryan” is the preferable name for the White race (species), although the primary reason is to prevent confusion with what “Caucasian” has come to represent.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More anthropology articles.

American Freedoms

 American Freedoms

Thomas Allen

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence has arrived. Now is the time to reflect upon the liberties, freedoms, and rights that the Founding Fathers fought for and sought to preserve. Unfortunately, Americans have lost many, even most, of these liberties, freedoms, and rights. Sadly, people born in recent decades never had a chance to enjoy most of them. A short list follows.

1. Bill of Rights. People enjoy all the rights guaranteed and protected by the Bill of Rights unless the federal government disagrees. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights identified in the Bill of Rights were absolute and transcended and existed before government. However, today’s ruling oligarchs consider them relative, that is, governmentally granted privileges that can be withdrawn at any time and for any reason.

2. Freedom of Travel. The Ninth Amendment and its equivalent in State constitutions prohibit the federal and State governments from preventing or otherwise hindering the popular means of travel. In the early days, travel was by means of horses, boats, and then trains. Now, it is by automobiles and airplanes. Today, Americans are free to have governments hinder and even prevent travel by the present popular means (automobiles and airplanes). People need the government’s permission to travel by automobile; they need a driver’s license, insurance, etc. 

Additionally, they are free to travel on commercial airliners if the federal government allows them. Moreover, if they travel by air, they are treated like criminals but with fewer rights than a criminal. The federal government presumes all passengers are terrorists until proven otherwise, i.e., passengers are guilty until they prove their innocence. Also, the federal government violates their right to privacy with unconstitutional searches. (What would people have done in the nineteenth century if the federal government required stagecoach passengers and their luggage to be searched before they were allowed on a stagecoach? They probably would have beaten, if not killed, the agent.)

3. Freedom to Promote One’s Heritage. People are free to defend and promote their heritage and culture if that heritage and culture are not White, especially Southern. White, especially Southern, heritage and culture do not have the right to exist.

4. Schools. People are free to send their children to public schools where they can graduate with a high school diploma, despite some graduates being so illiterate that they cannot read their diplomas. Moreover, people are free to have public schools indoctrinate their children to be obedient slaves of the ruling oligarchs. Sadly, most do not even realize that they are slaves.

5. Welfare. The unproductive are free to enslave the productive to support them.

6. Corporate Welfare. People are free to be forced to bail out banks and other companies run by incompetent or greedy managers who have political influence or are deemed by the federal government to be too big to fail.

7. Money. Instead of deciding for themselves how much money the economy needs, the people have the freedom of the federal government, in collaboration with banks through the Federal Reserve System, to decide the quality and quantity of money. Moreover, people are free to be forced to use debt, Federal Reserve notes, as money instead of commodities like gold and silver that are no one’s liability. Thus, people are free to live with and use money that continuously loses purchasing power.

For additional lost freedoms, see “Freedom” by Thomas Allen.

The Founding Fathers would rebel against the above freedoms and rights. They would be ashamed of their descendants for throwing away the liberties, freedoms, and rights for which they fought.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Allen.

More political articles.

Eating Pork

Eating Pork

Thomas Allen

I posted a comment to a comment on “TikToker Fired After Exposing How Plastic Is Getting In Pig Feed” by Anthony T (https://welovetrump.com/2022/09/08/tiktoker-fired-after-exposing-how-plastic-is-getting-in-pig-feed/#comment-5976483530). I argued that, according to the Scriptures, we were no longer obliged not to eat pork. My comment caused some discussion, with most commenters siding with the prohibition against eating pork. I call them Old Testament Christians because they seem to place more weight on the Old Testament than on the New Testament. Yet, none claimed that we are compelled to keep all the Old Testament laws; apparently, we are only required to keep the dietary laws. One claims that I did not know the difference between laws, statutes, and ordinances. Yet, when I asked him to explain the difference,  he refused.

Of all the conservative websites where I have posted comments, with rare exceptions, the commenters at this site have the least intelligence and knowledge. Most of them can only parrot back the Republican, neoconservative, and establishment conservative propaganda that they have managed to absorb. When they lack any good counterargument, they often resort to name-calling.

This discussion is presented in the appendix. The names have been changed to protect the guilty. I have added an afterthought to one comment.

Appendix

B: There are many reasons God forbids eating swine, add this to the list.

M to B: Pigs will eat anything, including humans. We need to run China out of this               country. Never buy Smithfield. Democrats would make good pig feed. Or, maybe                 we’ll find out there are some things pigs just won’t eat.

Me to M:  Most pigs eat a more nutritional diet than nearly every human in this                    country.

M to Me: Regardless, they will eat anything and Smithfield is owned by                                China. I eat bacon, just not any brand.

W to M: No worries. If I get hungry enough to eat Swine I’m already doomed.                      I’m not a Jew but when it comes to pigs, I’m Kosher.

Besides, God tells us that it is naughty to sup on Pigs!

M to W: But you can’t have a BLT without bacon. If we feed the democrats                          to the pigs i’m [sic] done with bacon.

Me to B: In Mark, Jesus declared all food, which would included [sic] pork, clean.

B to Me: No he didn’t

Me to B: Mark 7:19 — because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and                  goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.

Pork is a meat; therefore, Jesus declared it clean. Your argument is with Jesus,                     not with me.

Cs to Me:  Yeah, no food can deflie [sic] you. Spiritually. Thats [sic] what Jesus                    was talking about. If you read the whole chapter, thats [sic] the topic. Read the                      next verse for clarification. Mark 7:20 

But God the Father did give us dietary guidelines on what to eat and not to eat, as                  it pertains to the body. Why would he repeat himself and say ‘Eat honey’ if later                    on he’s just gonna say, “Just kidding. Eat whatever you want.”

Its [sic] wisdom not legalism.

It wasnt [sic] about phyiscal [sic] health but spiritual. If the rabbis touched pigs,                    they were ceremonially unclean and couldn’t attend their services, etc.

Jesus was saying thats [sic] nonsense.

Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you;re [sic] likely to get                 worms Youre [sic] decision.

If you just go by Mark 7:19, it sounds like there’s no such thing as junk food.

Hope that makes sense.

Me to Cs: In Galatians 3:23–25, Paul writes that Christians are no longer                              under the law. “23 But before faith came, we were kept in ward under the                              law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 So that                            the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be                                      justified by faith. 25 But now that faith is come, we are no  longer under a                              tutor.”

Animal sacrifices were a major part of the law. Do you still follow the law                            by sacrificing animals, or did God repeal that law for Christians? If He                                  repeals one law, why can He not repeal another law?

“Now when it comes to health, pigs eat crap. Eat pigs and you're likely to                             get worms.” Obviously, you know little about modern-day pig farms. What                            you say may be true for pasture raised pigs. However, nearly all pork sold                              today comes from pigs whose hoofs never touch the ground from the time                              that they are born to the time that they are slaughtered. These pigs live in an                          environment more sterile than almost every human household. Moreover,                              chickens eat crap, and there is no scriptural prohibition against eating                                    chickens. (An old farming book that I have gives the following advice for                              maximizing a pasture. First, run cattle across it. Then, run pigs across it to                              eat what passes through the cattle. Finally, run chickens across it to eat what                          passes through the pigs.)

B to Me: Matt 5:18 (Jesus’ words) says he will not change the law. Lev. 11                            (entire chapter but focus on v 46-47). The clean and unclean foods are LAWS,                      Jesus didn’t change the law. You are misunderstanding an interpretation.

Me to B: Then, according to you, Jesus lied. Both statements cannot be true.                          If he did not change the law, why are we not doing animal sacrifices as the                           Old Testament commanded? [Afterthought: Jesus did not change the law; he                         fulfilled the law by completing its purpose and meaning. He was saying that                         nothing would pass from the law until he fulfilled it.]

B to Me: You don’t know the difference between laws, statutes and                                        ordinances. Jesus never changed the law.

Me to B: Please explain the difference between the three and                                                  provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: II Tim. 2:15

Me to B: 2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a                                                                        workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly                                                                      dividing the word of truth.

Uh! Your response avoids answering my question.                                                                    Please explain the difference between the three and                                                                 provide a list of laws, statutes, and ordinances.

B to Me: Study yourself, i’m [sic] not going to                                                                        spoon feed you

Me to B: My studies show that I am right and                                                                           you are wrong. Moreover, most of the                                                                                       theologians and clergy that have consulted                                                                               agree with me and not with you. Also, I                                                                                    must conclude that you do not know the                                                                                    difference between laws, statutes, and                                                                                        ordinances and that you cannot provide a list                                                                            of them.

B to Me: Keep tooting your horn and                                                                                        puffing your chest out and eating that                                                                                        swine.

O to B: go outside both those books there were multiple                                                          references and (ellen g white is not a second god or                                                                 prophet... just a shrewd Mormon clone and a diet nazi                                                             [sic]) 1 Timothy 4:1-5 “Now the Spirit speaketh                                                                     expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from                                                           the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines                                                             of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their                                                                   conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry,                                                           and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath                                                        created to be received with thanksgiving of them which                                                        believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is                                                          good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with                                                              thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and                                                         prayer.” KJV

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.